As I mentioned yesterday, to the extent that the federal government has a role to play in lowering gas prices, one of the biggest things they can do is stop making the world believe that Iran faces an imminent attack on their nuclear facilities that will potentially inflame the entire Middle East and threaten the security of oil shipments. So it’s fortuitous that this intelligence assessment was released in the past 48 hours:

As U.S. and Israeli officials talk publicly about the prospect of a military strike against Iran’s nuclear program, one fact is often overlooked: U.S. intelligence agencies don’t believe Iran is actively trying to build an atomic bomb.

A highly classified U.S. intelligence assessment circulated to policymakers early last year largely affirms that view, originally made in 2007. Both reports, known as national intelligence estimates, conclude that Tehran halted efforts to develop and build a nuclear warhead in 2003.

The most recent report, which represents the consensus of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, indicates that Iran is pursuing research that could put it in a position to build a weapon, but that it has not sought to do so.

Although Iran continues to enrich uranium at low levels, U.S. officials say they have not seen evidence that has caused them to significantly revise that judgment. Senior U.S. officials say Israel does not dispute the basic intelligence or analysis.

The real ju-jitsu here would be for the President to make a speech affirming the consensus view of the US intelligence community, and then blaming everyone who disputes it and hypes the threat from Iran as being fully responsible for soaring gas prices.

Now I don’t really expect this, but it’s simply a fact that some of the over-speculation in oil futures (though not all) comes from the expectations of a military strike on Iran. And so anything that pushes things further in that direction has a material impact on prices. Belligerence keeps Americans paying more at the pump. A smart strategy would highlight facts over overblown rhetoric and frame the argument as “People who base their statements on myths are costing US consumers billions of dollars.”

But this is a tough sell, of course. 71% of Americans believed Iran already had a weapon in February 2010. The mythmakers have won out. And between the Israel lobby and the military-industrial complex generally, there’s a lot of momentum for continued hyping of the threat beyond all knowledge we have of the situation.

A speech about “worst-case scenario” fallacies could include this. It’s way past time for the US to walk back the paranoia. And call out the Republican fear-mongering. And remind the Republicans who it was that did not take al Quaeda seriously. And who it was that had a major terrorist incident on their watch.

I have a feeling that that sort of enlightenment is going to come at some point in the campaign. The saner heads in the GOP are already getting that Wily-Coyote-standing-beyond-the-cliff feeling even if they seek to use is to get them drafted into the nomination. (I use “saner” only by comparison.)

Well, this is the same little problem that Bush had: getting the intelligence agencies to sign on to the invasion agit-prop. (Colin Powell, of course, made a great deal-closer with his dog-and-pony-show bullshit at the U.N.)

With the higher-ups in BushCo all pounding on the CIA, etc., to get on board with what a threat to all of Christendom was Saddam, it finally worked, and you had “name” democrats like HIlary and Kerry drinking the koolaid and voting for the attack on Iraq. (It’s worth remembering that 21 democratic senators voted against it. ONE republican, Lincoln Chafee, voted against it.)

You’d think, and hope, that the “intelligence” community (how not to use quotes, with their track record…) would have learned a lesson.

You’d also think and hope that Barack Obama won’t push for another koolaid surge, if for no other reason that the fallout from attacking Iran would probably kill any chance he has of being re-elected, but then, not many of us would have believed that after he doubled John McCain’s electoral vote in 2008, democrats, and progressives in particular, would be playing the same kind of losing defense that we’ve been playing for decades.

Israel for some crazy reason that i do not understand wants to start a war with iran, which has the potential to destroy Israel. As for the US our politicians and media are just mouth pieces for israel, so if they decide to attack we will be drawn in.

I think others have stated and I agree some kind of false flag will happen and be blamed on iran and that will be used as justification. where it happens I don’t know.

With the higher-ups in BushCo all pounding on the CIA, etc., to get on board with what a threat to all of Christendom was Saddam, it finally worked, and you had “name” democrats like HIlary and Kerry drinking the koolaid and voting for the attack on Iraq.

I don’t think they drunk the koolaid. They know which side their bread is buttered and it is not the side of the american people or the truth.

There are persistent reports that Mossad and the IDF, just like Dempsey and this intelligence community report, are not eager to attack Iran.

Over four years ago during the Bush administration, Sy Hersh reported on the possibility of an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. That did not happen.

According to most analysts, the murders of the Iranian nuclear scientists and technicians have the MO of MEK. Was MEK working independently, for opposition figures in Iran, for Israel, or for the US? There has been a lot of jumping to conclusions but no one knows.

I continue to think that the US and Iran are engaged in domestically oriented chest-beating that will last through next year’s Iranian presidential election. No politician (not even Bush/Cheney, not even FDR) wants to actually pull the trigger before an election. It’s the posturing that’s valuable politically. When troops are actually dying the lustre of war is gone and stoicism or second-guessing sets in. One doesn’t look quite as strong as a leader until the war is won.

The reason Obama will never do this reasonable thing is that it isn’t reasonable for him because it would interfere with his duty to help the corporations make enormous profits. This two faced hypocrite might spout rhetoric against speculation causing oil prices to go up, but there’s no way he’s going to do anything that would reverse the trend of the oil companies making record breaking higher profits each year.

If Iran is not attempting to enrich Uranium/ Plutonium to weapons-grade, why did the IAEA declare their mission failed due to being barred from a crucial refining site? Perhaps that wouldn’t qualify as trying to ‘build’ a bomb, but wtf else would they do with it?

Um, aside from the Gareth Porter link from eCahn? Which I’ve read before . . . haven’t listened to the interview I must admit, is there info there not in the article he penned? eCahn? Bueller? anyone? ;-)

If Iran is not attempting to enrich Uranium/ Plutonium to weapons-grade, why did the IAEA declare their mission failed due to being barred from a crucial refining site?

You should really consider educating yourself on the subject before commenting. Plutonium is a by product of fissile reactions of U-238 when some of the neutrons released convert the U-238 into plutonium but it’s still just Plutonium 238. Plutonium 240 has a high rate of spontaneous fission which makes it useful in weapons. The process for creating it, (and weapons grade U-235 for that matter) is so infrastructure and electrical power intensive that you’d hardly be able to miss it. This isn’t a movie, this is reality and if the US Intelligence community and the IAEA say there is no evidence they are pursuing a weapon, it is because there is none. Even if Iran did spend the resources necessary to bury such a facility, the fingerprint of power usage would be a dead giveaway.

I find the Horton interviews of authors like Porter to be better than reading them. Horton has the talent of remembering details himself that put the current situation into context and is also smart enough to remember that his listeners are not up on all the past details so asks his interviewees to fill in.

It’s funny that John McCain, Lindsay Graham, and a whole bunch of media don’t get that bartab to split with Obama. They bully pulpit ain’t what it used to be when the media just reported. And even JFK was stampeded into the Bay of Pigs fiasco. The “soft on Iran” trope is a huge political weapon.

I think in 2004 Hersh wrote that US andor Israeli commandos installed sensors and other sniffers everywhere in Iran. At that time also, Colin Powell while somewhere in Africa (and wearing a flakjacket) answered a planted question by repeating it: “Do I think Israel should attack Iran?” It didn’t matter what he answered of course. It’s still the same old story as time goes by…

But the history of Iranian cooperation with the IAEA on carrying out inspections at the Parchin military testing centre, as well as a previous IAEA-Iran work programme agreement, suggests that Iran is keeping permission for such a visit as bargaining leverage to negotiate a better deal with the agency.

No, they don’t get the bar tab. Even asking if they do is nothing but ass-covering for Obama.

They’re not the president. Barack Obama is, and he had the perfect time and the opportunity to start reversing the knee-jerk-jingo bullshit, and instead has sustained and added to it. Trying to whitewash that fact does the “stay-the-course-with-Obama! no credit.

Early on, alll that Obama had to do to beat the assholes was confront them. Instead, he climbed into bed with them.

“AIPAC has more influence over congress than Obama on this issue.”

Gibberish, and intentional gibberish, to claim that AIPAC trumps Obama in congressional power.

He’s the preznint of the United States and he came in with more political clout than any democrat since FDR.

What’s happened is that he just refused to use it, and by that failure he’s created a vacuum the size of the Grand Canyon, for the republicans to fill.

IF it were true that AIPAC has more influence in congress that the president, with THIS president, after the win we gave him in 2008, that could only happen because he handed it to them.

You may think that’s an excuse for not holding him responsible, but I think the mileage, at least around here, varies a lot on that.

It is when you deeded your political ‘nads to John Boehner and the GOP your first 6 months in office.

But it’s never too late for real political courage. He could start today by holding a presser pointing out that our intel agencies are saying the things that Dave illuminates in this good thread.

That would bring this incoming-tide for another clusterfuck, to a screeching halt, and give him some time, to use the clout that he’s got left, such as it is, to thwart the knee-jerks, for a change. All that he’s doing now is coasting with the status quo on this, and time is not on his side in this.

He is to blame, but Congress is MORE to blame. They all voted to give any old presnit power to start war without their input. They of all people should be standing up first and out front. Every member of congress, both sides is guilty of crimes against humanity.

It is high time to point out the high crimes of Congress. If anyone is being left off the hook, it is those that are to be the standard bearer and the check and balance of our Government!

AIPAC trumps Obama in gaining Congressional power because they have been lobbying Congress long before Obama appeared on the national scene and will be lobbying Congress long after he departs from the national scene. And then Congressional power drives where Obama can go. It was no different with Bush/Cheney. Progressives underestimate the power of Congress and overestimate the power of the President at their peril.

What Obama has the power to do is negotiate behind the scenes with Iran. He has the power to actually commit troops to war. He has the power to brief the Congress about what is going on. He has the authority to advocate going to war but not the authority to dampen paranoia. We saw this limitation in Presidents throughout the Cold War; they could never wind it down even when there was an opportunity because the domestic politics was against them. Reagan and Gorbachev almost agreed to eliminate the US and Soviet nuclear arsenals until Reagan’s staff reminded him about domestic politics (most likely the Republicans hawks in Congress). It is a problem that if we want peace we have to come to grips with. Personalizing it doesn’t help that.

Rein in the Grahams and McCains and other political hawks; Obama will fall right in line and deal with the paranoia. Allow them to savage him and he will be forced into doing something stupid or forced to lose a la Carter.

Fact remains. None of the parties have strong domestic reasons to actually go to war.

The process for creating [plutonium], (and weapons grade U-235 for that matter) is so infrastructure and electrical power intensive that you’d hardly be able to miss it.

And this @46:

Unless Iran has a self contained electrical grid, the “tell” would be power usage. You don’t just plug that kind of technology into the wall.

I did not know that. I love that basic physics. Or even more rudimentary, basic factory mechanics.

I have no idea why anybody would call your basic science “verbal self-gratification.” Unless they just had no factual rebuttal.

Bottom line: the war mongers are failing so far to steer our military into engagement with Iran, regardless of how ignorant and susceptible to jingoism our American public may be. Thank you for explaining the nuts & bolts which underpin the NIE.

Fact remains: Barack Obama came into the White House with enough political muscle to tell AIPAC to go shit in their hat, but he had no intention of rocking the status-quo boat. If he was willing to do rehab on the GOP, and he WAS; he wasn’t going to waste one ounce of precious mandate on an already-somewhat-discreditited political pissant like AIPAC.

Your insistence on ignoring that, while parsing much-less-relevant “data” is just more herring-dragging-for-Obama.

The notion that the big, bad, conservatives somehow stole his mojo and forced him into corporatist mode, is just ludicrous.

As for the gas situation, here he is talking about it today, claiming that gosharootie, there’s no magic bullet to cut pump prices:

Of course, if he screws around long enough, Israel may do Iran on their own, and if/when that happens, a magic bullet in the form of the release of strategic oil reserves may magically appear. Especially if Netanyahu decides he’d like to have a republican in the White House.

That’s where the power is now. Obama is about at the point of no return for doing the things that Dave talks about in this thread. If he’s going to yank the rug from under the warbots, he’d better get to it. If he waits, and Netanyahu decides to pull the trigger on his own, then it WILL be too late to do anything but get in it with them.

The current gas centrifuges are for the separation of uranium-235 from uranium-238 – to “enrich the fuel to 20%”

They are doing this now – getting a large amount of 20% enriched “fuel” – but they already have more “research fuel” than they will need over the next 50 years.

It will take 6 months to move from 20% to 85% in an 85 pound mass, and during that time I know of no reason there would be increased electric usage compared to what they are doing now to get 20% (albeit they may try to move from their current 2nd generation centrifuges to the current 4th generation machines). Once they get 85 pounds they have at least the bang part of a bomb. It will be a year before that 85 pounds could show up in a bomb.

I agree Margaret that there is no reason to start a war – indeed I do not know what would be a reason. But there is no reason to indicate the official reports are in error or misleading as to the situation’s facts (albeit I also do not understand “Jim”‘s “self-gratification” comment).

The end game depends on Iranian intent – and our desire to do a “pre-emptive” action. In my value system there is no reason to do anything now – let them have the bomb, and beat the crap out of Hez and Iran if they try anything.

But I don’t make or have input to those that make the decision – and our media has set up the dance so even not worrying about the situation makes you “fringe” and “UN-American”.

Your spiel about neutered presidents runs afoul of another remaining fact: George Bush was able to create an atmosphere for an attack on Iraq using the residue of 9-11, and all of the “mini” powers that you denigrate.

He did this with no real mandate for it. He and his people, with Israel’s happy acquiescence, created that clusterfuck out of the whole cloth of bullshit and lies.

That you excuse Obama for doing so little with so much more, on the basis of the poor, anemic, presidency, is nothing but the on-ramp for the “four more years” jalopy.

It didn’t work in the mid-terms, and I don’t think it’ll work this year.

As Dave notes so accurately, this is a political crisis brewing. I would add, it’s also an opportunity, just like that two-way Chinese character. If Obama puils the plug on this, and faces up to the republicans (and incidentally, a much-overrated AIPAC) and IF he does it quickly, he could go a ways toward recouping his presidential power.

It’s not rocket science: if he doesn’t move events, events will move him. He’s been ducking that little truth for most of his term, but the clock is ticking louder every week.

“Fool me once,….” The American people are consumed by the idea that the US, like Israel, is exceptional and by some divine right are destined to dictate to the rest of the world. US blood lust to attack a country that poses no significant threat will lead to disaster. Obama is Bush 2.0. He’s surged in Afghanistan, accelerated the use of drones, tried to retain a military presence in Iraq by circumventing the agreement Bush made with the Iraq govt., pushed for a UN resolution to provide air cover for the Libyan “rebels” and then exceeded it to facilitate regime change, created a new presence in Somalia, has deployed JSOC troops to four other nations in central Africa, and murdered US citizens in Yemen. His administration also supported the coup in Honduras and continues to try and destabilize other Latin American democracies. He’s also armed the govt. death squads in Indonesia. These are just the actions that are public knowledge.

Therein is the explanation of Obama’s policy of “look forward, not backwards”. If he was to actively support the investigation and prosecution of war crimes, the majority of Congress would be culpable. That would include Tom Daschle, who considered the upcoming elections, at the time, to be more important than ceding war powers to the executive branch.

To me, Dempsey’s statement on the mistake of war with Iran was the equivalent of the pres sending up a trial balloon. I don’t think we’ll hear more “shove it Bibi” talk, even couched as “blame the thugs for gas spikes”. Dave D. said he didn’t think the pres making the right moves here is likely either, right?

Further, I don’t see how aggression against Iran hurts the re-election — I’m saying that as my first reaction. Thinking harder, going to war at all may be a tough sale just now, and of course the thugs would have some way to do their own about face and make that charge, even though they’re rattling sabres full bore right now.

I’d love to see that particular speech though. It’s a perfect wedge issue, and the timing is good. Full disclosure: I’m a whole lot more concerned with avoiding war than with rise in gas prices.

It’s about time Barry’s self interest coincided with something sensible.

Don, I’d like to see a “new” Obama too. I aint holding’ my breath. I think it’s just not in him. I don’t think it was a corporate conspiracy that made him sell his mandate like it was a cheap watch to a pawnbroker, but the effect has been the same.

I think that if one JDAM goes into Iran, then life as we know it will change for the worse, and will keep changing.

They can’t stand up to us militarily, and if they’re smart, they won’t try, that hard. But they have so many ways to hurt us, and to raise hell in the mid-east, that it will be impossible for Obama and the western nations to escape the economic and diplomatic fallout from attacking Iran.

If Iran is attacked, no matter by whom, oil is going to skyrocket. Obama can counter that to some extent, by releasing our “strategic” reserves, but will they last long enough for him to be re-elected, even if the rest of the effects of another war don’t come back on us, economically and militarily. All that Iran really has to do is pick off one tanker every couple of weeks, and that will keep the market on the edge of “crazy”. I don’t think we can stop them from doing that. If we keep our surface ships there long enough, one of them will get hit, eventually, and that will raise the ante for everything.

Bottom line: no surgical strike is possible in this one. Not even close. If it happens, there will be hell to pay, and the political bill is going to be sitting on Barack Obama’s desk.

So, a loud public speech, that will provoke a media attack, concern from Democrats in the AIPAC pocket, and Republican grandstanding can surely cause AIPAC to go back to their offices whimpering and will forestall a war.

But having the JCS Chair say that the facts do not support war (angering Netanyahu) and allowing the intelligence community to back up Dempsey with a reference to the opinion of Mossad does not dampen the chances of war. Bibi is not the fool Donald Rumsfeld was. When the IDF and Mossad say it ain’t gonna happen soon, it ain’t gonna happen soon. The IDF has learned from Ariel Sharon’s impulsiveness.

And it is unlikely that the GOP is successful in stampeding US public opinion like they did in the 2002 election. Not holding the White House hinders that.

However, that does not mean that Barack Obama will not use the GOP’s grandstanding for diplomatic pressure on Iran. And there still is negotiating going on.

On the other side, Ahmedinejad is not likely to do anything stupid but he will be provocative and the threat to close the Straits of Hormuz if attacked IMO is not an idle one, which to my mind is why the US military has come down on the side of caution.

In this case, action that AIPAC or its patrons in Israel want is not action that the PtB want; they have their oil profits just from the chest-beating. At least not now. I’m not defending Obama’s morality; I’m just saying analytically that the bully pulpit would not dampen US paranoia and that Obama has been smart not to use it in that way.

The primary reason that Obama is not Bush 2.0 is that Bush went to war in a way that fundamentally reduced US international power. Obama has gone about international relations including the surge and covert operations around the world in a way that has strengthened US international power. And he is not going to squander it on another failed war. That has both its good points and its bad points.

We need to focus on institutions of national security because they have their own logic and outlast the people who serve in them. James Carroll’s House of War is a clear exposition of this for the organization that inhabits the Pentagon. And separate out all of the folks responsible for holding these bloated institutions in being. Expecting “the guy at the top” to fix this is not going to be effective no matter who that guy is. There are too many different channels of money and political influence for that to happen. Knowing the details are important. But just pointing them out and expecting them to go away is the sort of naivete that the anti-war movement got disabused of in October 1967. (Again, read House of War for one person’s perspective on this.)

If you thought Hope and Change altered that you mistook a return to competency in serving the PtB for a revolution. Now the possibility of revolution is beginning because of the insistence of a loud sector of the PtB on continuing incompetency.

I still say, not before January 2013 at the earliest. That gives us eleven months. It is also why I recommend that as many of us as possible meet in Chicago during the G8/NATO Summit. That event is more important than election day this year.

I think that if one JDAM goes into Iran, then life as we know it will change for the worse, and will keep changing.

Your statement of the consequences is an understatement. Just tease out the consequences for Turkey, extend that to the fact Turkey is a NATO ally, and follow that chain of reasoning. If that were the only consequence, that in itself would be catastrophic. But then, consider the economic effects on the EU. And so on.

Bottom line: no surgical strike is possible in this one.

I do believe that is what the JCS is telling Obama and the IDF is telling Bibi.

If it happens, there will be hell to pay, and the political bill is going to be sitting on Barack Obama’s desk.

We very much agree on this one. Moreso if it happens after January 2013 and a Dem blowout (which some giddy Dems are predicting because of the clown car).

I like the “giddy dems” :o) …they’re so thrilled by the wretched show from the republicans, that they think all those independents will flock to Obama’s banner, again, and that, explicitly, the swing states that he carried in the rout against McCain, will be there for him, again.

I just don’t think that will happen. Too much bad cess that’s been put on hold, for too long; coming due. Gonna be a hell of a summer. :o)

I would also characterize Paul not as a racist or misogynist but along the line of “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”… his commitment to state rights and individual freedoms often lead him to unorthodox places, but the Archie Bunker types don’t hanker for Paul.

I know for some the binary CULTURE WARS! are all there is, but trust me, there are other ways to view the world.

If the intel people are trying to walk back the rush to war against Iran, who is feeding our MCM (Mainstream Corporate Media) all the info to let them beat the drums of war faster and faster, louder and louder?